Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

BTW The rods in the RB20DET-R in the HR31 GTS-R Gibson race car were stock so that should give you some indication of strength. ( Yes they were shot peened ).

Unless you rip a Gibson engine down and check, I wouldnt be so sure. I have read the same, and up to recently had little reason to doubt the claim...but now am starting to have my doubts...

my mate has put down 520rwhp on stock RB20 rods - they where only shot peened and ballanced...

He also turned that motor to like 8500rpm or something like that as well...

520rwhp is an awful lot especialy when turning 8.5k redline.

i would really like to see a dyno sheet of that pull.

Remeber the stroke of an Rb20 is fairly short so revs is not such a big problem. Shot peeing rods deos increase the strength of the rod considerbly.

As for them being able to take 520rwhp. That doesn't suprise me but I would have to see it to believe it.

How do the stock RB20DET Rods compare in size to the RB26DETT rods? (other than the length) :P

while revs are something the rb20 is capable of it does increace engine wear and the potential for something down there to let go.....

ive included a pic of the rb20's stock rods from when i tore down the engine and they felt and looked very beefy to me.

i guess the key to the rods holding power is a proper tune and making sure the engine doesnt detonate at all, which is what seems to cause failure.

Edited by carl h
Race car claims are sketchy to say the least.

The gibson cars also had a "stock" intercooler. But for some reason they are different to mine?

yer, its stock position i think, but thats about it.

They dont use the stock Nismo GTS-R manifold either :(

Wish i still have the RB20DET-R in mine. Not to use, just to anchor my boat with :lol:

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • Yeah, that's fine**. But the numbers you came up with are just wrong. Try it for yourself. Put in any voltage from the possible range and see what result you get. You get nonsense. ** When I say "fine", I mean, it's still shit. The very simple linear formula (slope & intercept) is shit for a sensor with a non-linear response. This is the curve, from your data above. Look at the CURVE! It's only really linear between about 30 and 90 °C. And if you used only that range to define a curve, it would be great. But you would go more and more wrong as you went to higher temps. And that is why the slope & intercept found when you use 50 and 150 as the end points is so bad halfway between those points. The real curve is a long way below the linear curve which just zips straight between the end points, like this one. You could probably use the same slope and a lower intercept, to move that straight line down, and spread the error out. But you would 5-10°C off in a lot of places. You'd need to say what temperature range you really wanted to be most right - say, 100 to 130, and plop the line closest to teh real curve in that region, which would make it quite wrong down at the lower temperatures. Let me just say that HPTuners are not being realistic in only allowing for a simple linear curve. 
    • I feel I should re-iterate. The above picture is the only option available in the software and the blurb from HP Tuners I quoted earlier is the only way to add data to it and that's the description they offer as to how to figure it out. The only fields available is the blank box after (Input/ ) and the box right before = Output. Those are the only numbers that can be entered.
    • No, your formula is arse backwards. Mine is totally different to yours, and is the one I said was bang on at 50 and 150. I'll put your data into Excel (actually it already is, chart it and fit a linear fit to it, aiming to make it evenly wrong across the whole span. But not now. Other things to do first.
    • God damnit. The only option I actually have in the software is the one that is screenshotted. I am glad that I at least got it right... for those two points. Would it actually change anything if I chose/used 80C and 120C as the two points instead? My brain wants to imagine the formula put into HPtuners would be the same equation, otherwise none of this makes sense to me, unless: 1) The formula you put into VCM Scanner/HPTuners is always linear 2) The two points/input pairs are only arbitrary to choose (as the documentation implies) IF the actual scaling of the sensor is linear. then 3) If the scaling is not linear, the two points you choose matter a great deal, because the formula will draw a line between those two points only.
    • Nah, that is hella wrong. If I do a simple linear between 150°C (0.407v) and 50°C (2.98v) I get the formula Temperature = -38.8651*voltage + 165.8181 It is perfectly correct at 50 and 150, but it is as much as 20° out in the region of 110°C, because the actual data is significantly non-linear there. It is no more than 4° out down at the lowest temperatures, but is is seriously shit almost everywhere. I cannot believe that the instruction is to do a 2 point linear fit. I would say the method I used previously would have to be better.
×
×
  • Create New...